Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Upper and Lower Table Rock/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:44, 10 November 2009 [1].
Upper and Lower Table Rock[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria. My thanks to ZabMilenko who created the article last April, Sasata who gave it a review in August and passed its GAN, Ruhrfisch who gave it a peer review in September, and everyone else who has helped out. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 14:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yay, geology article other than hurricanes >_>!
- Created by a andesitic lava flow approximately seven million years ago and shaped by erosion, they now stand over 800 feet (240 m) above the surrounding valley. - I think it might be better to use specifics here
- The land is jointly owned; The Nature Conservancy is responsible for 3,591 acres (14.53 km2), while the Bureau of Land Management is responsible for 1,280 acres (5.180 km2 - what land? The land where the U<R are? The land surrounding it?
- The 44-mile (71 km) long lava flow produced by the eruption nearly blanketed the entire Rogue Valley,[1] - no hyphen
- Erosion has continued, leaving the rocks 800 feet (240 m) above the valley floor,[4][6] and just over 2,000 feet (610 m) above sea level.[4] - erosion of what?
- From the outermost base of the rocks, three regions called oak savanna, chaparral, and mixed woodland surround the relatively flat tops. - the regions are called this? Do you mean they consist of?
- This Indian reservation remained open for three years,[6][20] at which time the inhabitants were moved to other reservations.[18][21] - grammar
- Finish those and we'll continue. ceranthor 19:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comment 1: Fixed.
- @Comment 2: Fixed.
- @Comment 3: Not sure where you want the hyphen...
- I think it is fixed now, but I am going to have to take a look at Template:Convert for a more permanent solution... ZabMilenko 03:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comment 4: Fixed.
- @Comment 5: Fixed.
- @Comment 6: Fixed?
- Thank you very much for commenting. :) LittleMountain5 02:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Many apologies for not coming back beforehand. :( ceranthor 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments Refs, dabs, links fine.
Ref 4 is cited nearly 50 times and I'm assuming it's a book. All the citations need page numbers without fail. You can add the book to a new bibliography section and then cite simply "xxx, p. xx" each time. RB88 (T) 20:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: (by Finetooth)
Quite a few passive-voice sentences in the article could easily be flipped to active voice, and I think they should be. For example, "The rocks were inhabited for at least 15,000 years by the Takelma people" can become "The Takelma people inhabited the rocks for at least 15,000 years." The next one that is easy to flip is "Due to these species and others, the rocks have been listed as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management since 1984." This could become "To protect threatened species, the Bureau of Land Management has listed the rocks as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern since 1984." When the actor is known, instead of "noun was verbed by X", write "X verbed noun" for more concise and punchy prose throughout.
I see overlinking in the article. "Snow", "wind speed" and "climate", "treaty", "telephone", "fall", "blooming", "snake", "poisonous", "fundraising", all familiar to most readers of English, are examples.
The common names of bird species are usually capitalized even if editors elect not to capitalize the common names of other species. The bird convention is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles. This does not apply to groups of birds such as "woodpeckers", but it does apply to Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Anna's Hummingbird, Pileated Woodpecker, Turkey Vulture, Rock Wren, and Acorn Woodpecker. I note also that many Wikipedia articles on non-bird species use capital letters for the common names of species as well. Examples in this article include Heermann's Kangaroo Rat, California Ground Squirrel, Ringneck Snake, and Striped Whipsnake. I'm inclined to follow the lead of biologists on these conventions.
"Vernal pools fill on the top of the plateaus in the winter and the spring due to the impermeable andesite located there." - Would this be more clear as "Vernal pools atop the plateaus fill during the rainy season in winter and spring because the andesite is impermeable"?
I find the fifth paragraph of the lede confusing. "The plateaus are named for their location along the Rogue River, not for their height." Doesn't "table" refer to their flat tops rather their elevation, height, or their relationship to the river?
"Sandstone and shale are the most common type of rocks hidden underneath the andesite cap" - "Types" rather than "type"?
"In May, most of the rest were relocated via the Columbia to the Siletz Reservation." - Perhaps saying that Columbia was a ship would make the meaning more clear to readers unfamiliar with Oregon history. Or you might just not mention the mode of transportation; it was actually modes since the Grande Ronde Reservation is not on the ocean or a navigable river.
"The facility is closed to the public due to the threat to the safety of the occupants of the aircrafts." - "Aircraft" rather than "aircrafts"?
- Finetooth (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the review! I will most likely get to them tomorrow, I'm fairly busy tonight. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 23:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comment 1: I think I've fixed them, but you might want to take a look.
- @Comment 2: Fixed.
- @Comment 3: Fixed most, but I'm not too sure which names to capitalize and which to not.
- @Comment 4: Yes, much clearer, thanks!
- @Comment 5: Wow, I never looked at it like that before... Fixed.
- @Comment 6: Fixed.
- @Comment 7: Removed.
- @Comment 8: Fixed.
- Thank you very much for the review! I will most likely get to them tomorrow, I'm fairly busy tonight. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 23:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck comments above. This is quite a nice article, well-illustrated, and I think it now meets the criteria. I changed one more passive to active, added uppercase letters to quite a few more species, and unlinked a few more common words.
I'm not a biologist, and I sometimes have trouble deciding whether a common name refers to a species or a group; I looked up the ones I changed, but it's possible that some are still imperfect. A third opinion from a scientist might be helpful.Also, some of the image licenses look odd to me. Image:Table Rock Galls.jpg looks familiar and complete, but Image:Upper Table Rock Trail.jpg and some of the others are less tidy and are flagged for a doublecheck. I suggest using the Table Rock Galls format for all of the license pages and then removing the flags so that readers can see at a glance the description, date, own work statement, and author.Finetooth (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Thank you for your support and your work on the article. I've started to fix the image pages, it seems they all got jumbled up when they were moved to Commons. Thanks again, LittleMountain5 14:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the images have been fixed. Cheers, LittleMountain5 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Looks good. Striking my image comment. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dug up a couple links about capitalization: 1, 2, 3, 4. Summary: There's no consensus. Either way is accepted, although all the specific bird names should be capitalized. I'm fine with it either way. Thanks, LittleMountain5 01:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Looks good. Striking my image comment. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the images have been fixed. Cheers, LittleMountain5 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment (by Ruhrfisch) As noted, I peer reviewed this and think it is pretty close to FA now. I have some questions / quibbles first though:
There is a problem with this sentence The Takelma tribe of Native Americans inhabited the Table Rocks for at least 15,000 years by the Takelma people. Please fix itCould One species of wildflower called the Dwarf Woolly Meadowfoam grows around these pools,... be made more concise as The Dwarf Woolly Meadowfoam, a species of wildflower, grows around these pools,...?I think I asked about this in PR, but The Table Rocks have continued to erode, leaving them 800 feet (240 m) above the valley floor,[4][7] ... seems incorrect - the Table Rocks do not erode (at least as much), the surroundings do, which is how the Table Rocks formed (if I understand what is going on correctly)Here the first subject is Joesph Lane, but the party doing the ceding in the clause are the Native Americans, which could be confusing (makes it sound like Lane did the ceding). Would it read better as The Native Americans signed a treaty with Joseph Lane in September 1853, ceding 2,500 square miles (6,500 km2) of their land for $60,000. ?
Hope this helps - I also made a few copyedits (please revert if needed). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comment 1: Oops, fixed.
- @Comment 2: Changed.
- @Comment 3: Tweaked, see what you think.
- @Comment 4: Yes it does, thanks.
- Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Table Rock VOR.jpg - The image description page says "This picture was taken by my wife (who of course has no problem letting me upload it)". We need an OTRS ticket confirming this. (We don't want to start saying that a husband has total ownership over his wife's intellectual property! We'd be slipping back a few centuries.) Let's hear that the copyright is released from the copyright holder. Awadewit (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified the uploader. LittleMountain5 14:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where this has anything to do with "a few centuries" ago. The signal through the noise indicates WP:COPYREQ. Is that what Awadewit (talk · contribs) is talking about? ZabMilenko 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image removed. Aristonia (talk · contribs) says she will upload it as herself at her own convenience. I'm not sure how deletion works at commons but I'll go take a peek. I am truly sorry for holding this process up, and Little_Mountain_5 (talk · contribs) deserves props for his patience. ZabMilenko 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
I've gone through the geology section of the article and I had a hard time following it; I think it would be better if it were in more of a chronological order and would be willing to rewrite it for you. Typically, "inverted topography" refers to a river channel that is filled with lava, and then becomes a topographic high; while I can conceptually see applying that term to a river valley, what in the region that was once higher than the valley floor is now lower than it? (Was it the volcanoes?) If nothing, the term "relict surface" would be better.
I've found a much clearer and more straightforward history published by the BLM; this published history has good figures that we could use because they're from a US government agency, and after reading it, I felt that I understood what the Wiki article was getting at. I know that they don't always get the geologic history 100% correct though, so I'd like to know if the longtime contributors to the article have anything to say on the factual accuracy of the BLM summary. Awickert (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's a bit hard to follow; a rewrite would be great if you have the time to do it. As for the inverted topography, the river canyon that was filled with lava was once below the the rest of the Rogue Valley, but the valley has since eroded, leaving the much harder lava above it. I'm not sure what 'relict surface' means, but I think 'inverted topography' fits. The BLM page seems correct, and it is actually ref number
13 in the article. I don't think I'd like to directly copy it though, if that's what you're getting at. Thanks, LittleMountain5 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- OK - so the paleo-canyon walls eroded, and these are remnants of the valley bottom that now sit high above the surrounding area - I get it now, so inverted topography works for me. But since I didn't get it from the article, a rewrite will be in order; I will do it when I get a chance and give you permission to prod me at my talk until if I don't do it in the next 48 hours.
- To answer your question, "relict surface" refers to any old fragment of a dissected landscape.
- As to BLM: I should have looked at the refs, but Google steered me to the BLM nonetheless. Don't worry - the rewrite will be in my words, Awickert (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it; since I see conflicting info from our current sources, I am going to see if I can get some geologic maps from the USGS. Once I get my hands on those, I'll have a much more authoritative source from which to write about the geologic history, Awickert (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ProvisionalSUPPORT Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Comments Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) This is a fascinating article, and I echo sentiments from above: a geology article that isn't about hurricanes and typhoons! Hooray! Provisional because your prose issues (geological jargon?) confuses.[reply]
- I dejargoned the worst paragraph of jargon. Please check!Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the material, your sections on the ecozones could be fleshed out some: primarily why and where do these ecozones exist on the Rocks? what are the conditions that create them? Beyond that, my list is below (of prose issues) and you're addressing them. Keep up the good work on this. Very nice article. :) Also, really need to change history to HUMAN history...since the previous section is also history, you'll need to distinguish. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have mostly prose issues, and to some extent presentation. In the first section:
[reply]
- Upper and Lower Table Rock were created when Olson Mountain, near present day Lost Creek Lake, erupted approximately seven million years ago.. The eruption of Olson Mountain, near present-day Lost Creek Lake, created Upper and Lower Table rock. (two different wikilinks adjacent, makes it difficult to follow. Also, subject placement...eruption.
- The 44 mile (71 km) long lava flow produced by the eruption nearly blanketed the entire Rogue Valley,[1] covering an ancient Rogue River canyon with over 100 feet (30 m) of lava... The eruption produced a 44 mile long lava flow that covered an ancient river canyon with more that 100 feet of lava. If the ancient Rogue River was so named, then this needs an explanation.
- Since that time, the Rogue River has eroded 90 percent of the lava away from the surrounding areas, leaving behind a sheet of hard andesite with an average thickness of 125 feet (38 m) in place of the canyon.. In the seven million years since the Olson eruption, the Rogue River has eroded 90 percent of the lava, exposing a sheet of hard andesite with an average thickness of 125 feet.
- Sandstone and shale are the most common types of rocks hidden underneath the andesite cap, deposited from the Rogue River approximately 38 million years ago
- The Table Rocks are an example of inverted topography.. This is your first sentence.
- The Table Rocks offer an example of inverted topography. Thirty-eight million years ago, an ancient river deposited sandstone and shale in the valley. The eruption of Olson Mountain, near present-day Lost Creek Lake, created the basic formations of Upper and Lower Table rock. The eruption produced a 44 mile long lava flow that covered an ancient river canyon to a depth of 100 feet or more. In the seven million years since the Olson eruption, the Rogue River has eroded 90 percent of the lava, exposing a sheet of hard andesite with an average thickness of 125 feet.
question: is all andesite hard? if it is, then we don't need to qualify each mention of it. I'll get to more questions later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- organizational issues.
:Geology and climate. In this section, you start talking about the formations' geological history, then you switch to climate, ecozones, etc., and then in the following section you go back to its history (albeit human history). May I suggest the following
Geological history (1.1) Formation (1.2) (1.3) Continuing influences (or something like this)- Human uses (2.1) Clovis period (2.2) Takelman uses (2.4) Euroamerican uses (2.5) Present day uses (2.5.1) Ownership and management (2.5.2) Trails
- and these could be broadened.
*Ecological habitats (3.1) Oak savanna (3.2) Chaparral (3.3) Mixed Woodland (3.4) Mounded prairie and vernal pools.
- and these also could be expanded.
:*this is where the bit on the shrimp goes, not in the geological formation section
- I would be interested in knowing the relationship between these ecozones and the table rocks' geologic development.
;citation issues
- Reyes, Kennedy, Capps, Janes, and Latimer could be shortened. You don't need every author, just one, to identify the source.
- bibliography only has 2 sources, but your citations list many. I realize they are newspaper articles. I would list them. You might look at Inner German Border to see how the editor addressed organizing multiple periodical references.
;prose issues
- For example, He (Day) funded residential lots near the landmark with the intent of marketing them-- landmark?
there are lots of these, that seem to come out of the blue, so to speak. I think the prose needs a bit more work. Actually, a lot more work. Similar to that paragraph I showed you yesterday, you could make sure that your paragraphs actually have a subject sentence, and that the paragraph deals with the subject. It may be helpful to put an "under construction" sign on the article, and really give it a go through.
;images
these are terrific (with Adewait's qualification about the husband/wife thing), and I especially like variety: the panorama and the lizard, the large broad view and the small close up view. The prose should mirror the images, with focus, and big picture. You've caught the idea with the pictures; I'd like to see you do the same with the prose.
Until then, though, I need to withhold support, but I'm looking forward to supporting this later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Organizational issues
- Citation issues
- @Comment1: Fixed.
- @Comment2: Sounds good, I'll get to it later today. Should the websites stay in the reference section, or be moved to the bibliography section?
- everything should stay in your citations section, and be reiterated in the bibliography. I'd probably make a separate section for books, monographs, encyclopedic works, and one for periodicals, and one for websites. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your bibliography is superb!!! You're setting a new standard for bibliographies. I'm very proud of you! I have one question, and you may not be able to answer this, we might need another reviewer who knows these things better than I do. what is the policy on putting the location of the newspaper into the bibliographic entry, when there is a wiki article on that newspaper and it's linked...does it still need to say Mail Tribune (Medford, OR)? or is the link sufficient? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I did some digging and found a bit about news articles at WP:CITEHOW. It states that 'citations for newspaper articles typically include... city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper', so I'll add Medford to the refs tomorrow. Cheers, LittleMountain5 03:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the text very carefully, but I think it needs a little more work to bring the prose up to par. The other ingredients seem to be all in place, and I trust the primary author(s) will continue to work on the article after it gains the star. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some examples:
Lead;
- European American settlers forced the Takelma into Indian reservations.
- (Since the reservations could be on the Rocks themselves, it is better to have:) European American settlers forced the Takelma out of the Table Rocks and into reservations. (I don't think you need "Indian")
- To protect these threatened species and others
- To protect these and other threatened species
- Two trails have been built on the rocks: Lower Table Rock Trail, and Upper Table Rock Trail. The trails were created in the early 1980s by the Youth Conservation Corps, Boy Scouts, and the Oregon Department of Forestry.
- (Trails are typically "cut." Also, I'm assuming you mean "The Rocks" rather than "the rocks," since the plateaus now have topsoil and foliage. Best to combine the sentences:) Two trails, Lower Table Rock Trail and Upper Table Rock Trail, were cut on/across the Table Rocks/plateaus in the early 1980s by the Youth Conservation Corps, Boy Scouts, and the Oregon Department of Forestry.
Might be a good idea to reduce some of the jargon.
Example:
- (Section 1): Starting approximately 40 million years ago in the middle Eocene,[1] an ancient braided river system occupied the region into which the Rogue Valley is now carved.[2] This river system deposited what is known as the Payne Cliffs Formation by first laying down a thin basal conglomerate, which was followed by arkosic sandstones and siltstones.[2][3][4] Deposition halted by 37.9 million years ago.
- Around 40 million years ago an ancient river system crisscrossed the present-day Rogue Valley. For 2.1 million years, it deposited ...
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for the support! I fixed everything except for the jargon, which I will try to get to tomorrow. LittleMountain5 01:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status: image clearance pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.